Agenda... 9:00 am
Old Business
A. Resolution #2018-08-04 Covenant change-sheds/construction storage units
(G. Williams)*
9. New Business
A. Trustee assignments (G. Williams)*
B. Committee Chair assignments/committee member approvals (G. Williams)*
C. Complaint #5051 appeal (S. Winegar)*
D. ARC rec for $450 prop trfr fee (S. Winegar)*
E. Recommendation re: lien fees & fax charges (L. Frazier)*
F. Variance req to chg ht restriction at 1005 Oysterville Rd. (S. Winegar)*
G. Resolution 2018-08-01 to adopt an asbestos SOP (J. Flood)*
H. Directional bore digger purchase for $4,084.05 plus tax (B. Neal)*
I. $3,134.90 to Naselle Rock for ditch cuts along 324th (B. Neal)*
J. Resolution 2018-08-02 to auth to close Water Meter account (R. Turner)*
K. Resolution 2018-08-03 to award Asbestos Abatement Project (J. Flood)*
38 comments:
There's lots of agenda items that would bring questions or objections from members if we had access to information about each item prior to the meetings. Whoops, I forgot that the board doesn't really want the members to understand what the hell is going on.
That’s probably because they don’t know, or haven’t been told their opinion yet.
Given the fact that except at the budget vote board meeting pretty much the same people show up proves your conspiracy claim has no merit. Most issues are no concern to most members. But you two continue to enjoy yourselves with your comments.
Notice that the first item is the shed roof nonsense. Last year at this time, Chris Hansen, re-elected to the BOT, proposed that the covenant be changed regarding shed roof EAVES, limiting them to 14 !/2 inches. Where did they come up with that "magic" number ? The motion passed but it was pointed out by a Trustee that the covenant could not be changed without the change being presented to the membership for review.
Both the State RCWs and our covenants state this requirement. This was not presented to the membership at the Annual Mtg. and nothing has changed in the requirements. Mr. Williams wants to instate this change for the sake of his stupid lawsuit/personal battle with Patrick Johansen.
Presumably Williams decided not to bring the issue up at the Annual Meeting, for the sake of making Deb Blagg look like the bad guy here. But passing another motion will not change the covenant, which cannot be changed legally without a member vote of approval at a Special Meeting.
What would make much more sense would be to rewrite the covenant to allow minor alterations to sheds, such as porches or woodracks, provided they are approved by the Architectural Comm. Owners obviously want more latitude on RV sites, and RV lots can have only one shed on their properties. If well built, it shouldn't be a problem. Presumably the County would have no objections to Surfside allowing more owner choice in this matter.
How many times does it have to be said? A storage shed is a storage shed is a storage shed. Nothing more and nothing less. A few RVers decided that they want more. Okay, go find an HOA or RV park that gives you more. Those who propose a change to the storage shed covenants and county ordinance to add all kinds of porches, plumbing, walkways(decks), overhangs, clam cleaning stations, etc., etc, et al; are a minority. They are seeking enhancements that were never promised when they decided to purchase an RV site in Surfside. Most members support clarifying the shed covenant to assure that the sheds remain tidy storage sheds to prevent the ugly clutter that some members accumulate on their lots.
The RVers are damned lucky they are allowed to have one simple storage shed per lot. This is not an option at most places that allow RV camping.
note that at the Annual Meeting, the HOA President stated that $50k had been spent on legal fees and promised that not a penny more will be spent. The latest figures given at the meeting today shows that legal expenditures are now up over $60k. Is a promise not a promise?
How much of those legal fees will be covered by insurance payments? We need all the information not a selected slice of information.
So August 18, 2018 at 12:02 PM
Insurance does nothing for free ... when the premiums go through the roof are you still going to be okay with all the waste?
We are paying for insurance even if we receive no benefit from it just so that we will be prepared for something like the pushy, self serving members who have caused the escalating legal expenses this time. The last thing that the association wants to do is to allow a few trouble making members to bully their way ahead for self serving goals that ignore the covenants.
Thank you cut n paste. So, you get drunk n crash your car and injure someone and your insurance doesn’t go up? Again, theses legal expenditures have not been properly authorized, or approved. No matter what side you are on, there is a right way, and a wrong way. The wrong way will always cost us more, and resolve nothing.
We get it 4:14, you are a trouble maker. The problem is that the trouble makers are self serving instead of concerned with the overall good of the association. There would not be large legal expenses if it were not for the few members who decided to try to break the covenants and get away with it. Legal expenditures should be authorized or approved by whom in your opinion for legal expenses of the association?
No doubt murder by stinging bees is not mentioned specifically in any law. That does not mean that a murderer who uses stinging bees to kill his enemy should get away with the murder.
There happen to be 100s of different shed designs of 120 sq. Ft. or less, so Mr. "Shed is a shed", every structure planned for a build in Surfside needs to be approved on its' own merit. It is not uncommon that a change is made in the course of building a structure, and not unusual for the assumption to be made that the change is not a problem.
There is no need pretending that such changes are not often waved through by the Architectural Committee. Once a building is constructed, it is likely to be more sensible to let it go. Mr. Johansen's shed is on an undeveloped cul-de-sac, and is not really visible through the trees. So a sensible BOT would weigh the impact of the variation Mr. Johansen made, and recognize that it does not impact the community at all. 2 lots over, is another RV lot with a shed and porch. They are not being persecuted where Mr. Johansen is.
The lot next to his has a rented outdoor toilet, which is allowed. So pursuing this lawsuit against Johansen is ridiculous. It cannot be justified to spend vast sums of MEMBER funds to try and punish a member, when all that needs to be done is caution him not to construct anything without proper approval. Done deal.
There is no assurance that the HOA will not lose the lawsuit, and in so doing, have to pay Johansen's legal costs as well. That was the outcome of the last HOA effort to dismiss an order that they pay this member's legal fees.
Johansen understood that the porch was okay, and proceeded. By the way, 5:13, you should read the covenants at least once before you die. They state repeatedly, that ALL decisions made by the BOT are to be reviewed and approved by ALL trustees on the Board, not one, not 2, but ALL of the Trustees must be consulted, and a vote taken, before ANY expenditures are legally approved.
Stinging bees huh ? No one has a clue what you're talking about.
120 feet of enclosed storage space is just that and no more no matter the design within those dimensions.
There is nothing in the Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws or the Covenants regarding all decisions by the board being reviewed by all trustees. 6:27, you should do the reading and quit shooting off your crazy ideas before you know what you are talking about. Many of us have read and reread all the governing documents many, many times. Obviously, you don't even know that duties of the board are not part of the covenants.
So, really all we need is a dictator?
You are blind 9:57. It is repeated throughout the covenants. The president has very little unique authority, and is essentially just another Trustee. one of his authorized duties for example, is to appoint people to committees. I suggest you find that in the covenants and you will read that the president can appoint members to committees, but approval of the BOT is required. This is one of dozens of examples in our docs.
The State RCWs make it clear that Board decisions can be made outside of open meetings, only if the entire Board is consulted, and it is agreed upon to vote on that action. The president of the Surfside HOA has no unique authority without Board approval. You are incorrect !!
9:34 You are completely nuts. There is nothing in the Articles of Inc., the Bylaws or the Covenants in regard to all board members being consulted or informed about anything. If a majority vote exists among the board members, a decision has been made. The RCWs (64.38) also do not address the opinion that 9:34 believes is true. Members, like 9:34 are both delusional and dangerous. 9:34 makes things up and then believes the crap that he has made up. Don't get sucked in to his craziness. Go and read the documents for yourself. They are all readily available online.
I don't believe that the Board is performing as well as it should. The failure to inform the members on all issues and the willingness to obfuscate mistakes and wasteful spending is absolutely shameful. That does not give 9:34 any reason or right to engage in spreading inaccurate information.
10:00 you are a liar !! The president has NO independent authority in Surfside, and NO decisions are to be acted upon without Board review, and a vote.
12:17 You apparently have no ability to read anything and understand it. Go take a nap.
Really 11:36? Property owners who use their property for RVing in Surfside are “damned lucky”? More like they are just plain damned. Surfside continues to whittle away at our land use rights, limiting the amount of time we can use our property and how we use our property, while expecting us to pay our full share of dues & apportionments.
Although the Pacific County Zoning Ordinance allows property owners to occupy or use an RV on their property year-round, Surfside’s Covenants prohibit year-round use. During the 4 1/2 month period from 11/1 to 3/15, Surfside restricts RV camping to a maximum of 60 days - rendering those properties unusable for 75 days - by decree rather than choice. Damn, we are so lucky!
Now, with the latest Covenant change, Surfside property owners are the only ones in Pacific County with an arbitrary limit on the amount of overhang allowed on a shed roof. The County Zoning Ordinance contains NO language pertaining to roofs on storage buildings; however, the Board - under the guise of “clarification” - revised the Covenants to place greater restrictions on sheds in Surfside than those which apply to every other property owner in Pacific County. Damn, we are so lucky!
Yep, I’d say the members who are RV lot owners are damned lucky to be paying the same dues as homeowners, while having less property rights and being the favorite targets of criticism from the snobby homeowners who hate having to share Surfside with RVers. They must not have read the Covenants before buying and must not have noticed all the RV lots when they decided to buy or build a home in Surfside. Too bad they aren’t so damn lucky - and are stuck with us!
I admit to have mis-stated the responsibilities of the Board and president as being in the covenants. They are found primarily in the Articles and Bylaws and Surfside Operations Manual. Nowhere in ANY of the Surfside documents is the president given any independent authority to make action decisions.
It is established that the BOT will consist of 3 to 9 members, and (Art. VI,Sec.1 …"the business and affairs of the HOA shall be controlled by the BOT."Sec. 1 through 7, most of a page, relates to the powers and duties of the Board of Trustees.
Art. VII, deals with the Duties of specific positions on the BOT. Sec. 1. President. "presides at meetings, signs contracts (as does the BOT Secretary) and can call Special Meetings of the BOT OR members (as can the BOT). "He shall have and exercise UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE BOT, the general supervision of the affairs of the HOA." one short paragraph states only these things.
The Operations Manual frequently mentions the role of the Board of Trustees, "Committees - item 5. "The Board Pres. shall appoint or remove Chairpersons, with Board of Trustee approval. The Chair can select or remove Committee members with Board approval. The number of comm. members is up to the Chair person, with BOT approval. "The BOT may assign one of its' members to a Committee as a designated committee member. "
Regarding excessive legal spending prompted only by Mr. Williams:
"Procedures for Accessing Funds: 1) Request for use of contingency funds shall first be reviewed by the Business Manager, Systems Manager, and Board Treasurer, with final approval of the expenditure by the Board of Trustees." 2) other contingency funds use requires BOT approval in a Board Meeting.
And the Bylaws state : (Art. IV, Sec. 7. "Any vacancy occurring in the BOT shall be filled by appointment by the majority of the remaining Trustees."
NOWHERE is exclusive authority granted to the president of Surfside Board of Trustees. We have 9 Trustees with equal authority, only differentiated by a few specific duties of no great significance.
You may not like my paraphrasing of the RCW that specifies requirements for making decisions outside of open meetings, but the intent is to require consultation with all of the seated Trustees, and a record of decided action recorded at the next open meeting of the BOT. This has not been done, and no attempt to consult all of the Trustees has been made.
The intent is to avoid rogue individuals making HOA decisions on their own. This has been on the books for several years, obviously for a specific reason - that being to prevent Board business from being transacted free-form at the president's discretion.
So I'm delusional huh ? Governance is intended to be done by committee and NOT by the president, or a dictator.
Steve, you have it exactly right. On my first term as a Board member, we, the entire Board, did a review and update of the entire Operations Manual. The only ones who took the time to make revisions was Debbie Richmond and myself. The President at that time, Flood I think or Williams, had abused there power concerning other Board members and committee assignments. I was able to get the addition of "With Board Approval" added to much of which you cite. I was and still am proud that I got that needed change.
What we are seeing now is the bypass of "With Board Approval" Williams and Flood both know better. I can give other present day Board Members a limited pass because they are new, but they should have the understanding that you now have, of the proper procedure. The very intent of adding "With Board Approval" was to prevent the very things you mentioned. It was effective until recently. They are trying to get around the policy by invoking "Executive Committee" They are also violating the intent for actions by an executive committee.
If this is not enough to remove a Board member, I don't know what is.
Interesting that Cox and Miller have decided that they know the secret underlying intentions of RWC's,Surfside governing documents and etc. I thank Cox for half heartedly admitting his previous assertions about what was the content of the laws, ordinances and governing documents was off center to say the least.
It is true that the board is not performing well and that there is a shameful lack of factual information available to the general membership. Transparency in management is a joke in Surfside. It does not help anything to have a couple individuals, a crackpot coalition of RVers, a crackpot group of tree huggers and some aggressive trouble makers engaged in trying to tear apart what does exist with no decent plan for improvements to better serve the entire membership of this hoa. The idea of hiring a professional hoa management firm to replace what we have is looking more sensible the longer this mess continues.
If you don't understand what you read, that's your problem. Speaking of delusional, your concept of governing documents is that they all have "Secret underlying intentions ?"
Words can always be misunderstood, but such documents seek to state requirements clearly and succinctly. You are a crackpot, desperately making excuses for being WRONG.
11:38 is a blow hard who thinks he knows more than he knows. He has shown that on this blog more than a few times. His post to prove that he understands the unknown to others intentions of laws, ordinances and covenants was once again an arrogant and laughable comment.
Shamefully, some members of the Surfside Board have sought and used legal advise at the expense of the members to stretch their personal authority to the maximum. When will the general membership and the current Board members learn that voting for the same jerks will not result in better decisions? We need people who have leadership skills that include setting aside personal interests, embarrassments over mistakes and arrogance to truly serve and make decisions for the good of the association and all its members.
"Understands the unknown to others intentions of laws, ordinances and covenants" is a statement that makes no sense.
I have quoted Surfside documents, not tried to interpret "the unknown". I am not a Board or Committee member. I understand written language, and have conveyed useful information for those who are interested, based on the written words in our documents, which not everyone is familiar with.
I don't know who you are, so have no ill-will towards you. My only intention is to emphasize that our Board of Trustees is enabling Gary Williams to ignore the required procedures to conduct HOA business, make independent decisions about legal actions, and spend vast sums of community money on his personal battle with Patrick Johansen.
The perceived "issue" in this lawsuit is a simple matter that has no impact on the community at large, and like most compliance matters, should be easily negotiated with the owner. Considering there are hundreds of sheds in the community that Williams has never laid eyes on, he should let the matter go insisting approval be more clear in the future.
The lives of Surfside owners will not be enhanced by pursuing this lawsuit. The Board has no authority to change the shed roof requirements, rewriting the covenant, without required review by the membership. That could have taken place at the Annual Meeting, but did not.
And a covenant change cannot be made "retroactive" relative to some random date, as that is an invalid act. Until the membership meets in a Special Meeting and approves the covenant change, it is NOT a Surfside requirement.
Mr. Cox make some valid points. Anyone who does not realize the need for change here is either supporting the stupidity, or indifferent. Which is it?
Mr. Cox and others clearly do not understand that it is not a matter of going after Johansen's shed. Can you folks just step back and take a look at the big picture instead of pissing and moaning about one shed that was not built as it was approved. It is a matter of taking action to defend the covenants and the HOA's right to have covenants. It should be a reassurance that the HOA will enforce the covenants upon which the members made their decision to buy into Surfside and on which to rely for the protection of the value and comfort of their property ownership.
Williams is a complete flop because he has no skill or will to manage well including making transparent and timely information available to the membership. Had he bothered to convince all other board members and the general membership of the value of underlying issues in the Johansen mess a lot of crap would never have happened.
Taking action is a logical thing to do. Beating a dead horse after the judge has ruled is ignorance, combined with a healthy dose of self interest.
You can try to take moral high ground, but the decision was malicious, capricious, and is most definitely not in the interests of this organization. You will see that when you get your dues assessment.
How in the hell do we, the members, get this ridiculous squandering of members dues stopped. This SHOA will assess me right out of ability to own my property. It will become unaffordable for many members to retain their properties with the Williams Spending Epidemic! WHAT CAN BE DONE? Help!
Thank you 3:35 and 3:59. (why do I think these two are the same person?) You have proved that you can't step back and see the big picture. None of this would have happened if it weren't for a wise ass determined to ignore what was approved for his shed. Do you understand that rule breakers need to be put in their place to avoid chaos?
These two comments are NOT by the same person, but you are the same person as 8:15, and 2:34. Nothing will be accomplished by pursuing this lawsuit. It is nearly certain that the HOA will lose the lawsuit. It is completely obvious to the Court that this is a waste of their time, and an attempt bythe HOA to CRUSH an individual owner with the might of their 1.2 million dollar annual budget.
What is also obvious to the Court is that this is a trivial matter, and completely typical of HOA matters in that it should have easily been resolved. There is NOTHING to prove, and you are a fool.
I don't see a comment at 8:15. 2:34 made some reasonable points. I agree that Surfside should defend our covenants to protect what our members bought when they settled on this HOA. Allowing members to freely ignore what was approved by the Arch. committee is a recipe for disorder and conflicts.
How completely delusional is it that Mr. Cox can put on his Swami turban and know what the "Court" thinks? I hope this Swami will jump back in the genie bottle so that we can put a cork on it.
Meant to say 8:52. I'm just stating my opinion and make that clear. The points I make are perfectly obvious to the Court, so it doesn't take a "swami" to predict the HOA's failure in this case, if it continues.
With Johansen's property sold, he will have to resign from the Board, so will have fulfilled the request by pres. Gary Williams that Patrick resign and move out of the community. Will the new owner be willing to chop the porch off of his newly purchased shed to appease the a-holes on the BOT ? We'll see.
Patrick bought property on the Bayside of the area several months ago. He didn't intend to continue living in Surfside.
Patrick is a good guy that tried to fight skunks! He has the backbone to not back off to these bullies in SHOA. I’m sorry to see him leave, but quite frankly, most people wouldn’t have lasted this long to his character assassinations, stalking, lurking and whatever else the Mafia could do to rid the HOA of him. Peace to you Patrick. You deserve better! You opened a lot of eyes to the corruption.
In response to August 22, 2018 at 2:34 PM,
That is certainly not the big picture. How many of our covenants do we really enforce. How many houses do not have their addresses clearly posted? Certainly more than half. How many have front door lights that violate the covenants? Certainly far more than half. How many properties have illegal gorse or other illegal plants? Many! Didnt the board actually vote to not enforce some of the covenants. Dont give us this bull about going to court to defend the right to enforce our covenants. The FACTION is clearly targeting Johansen because he made the effort to improve the covenants to benefit all of the members, not just the Faction.
Post a Comment